Luna Protege |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:But no, the equipment section does not let you buy or sell self-aware creatures, for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.This is a problem I ran into while designing a playable construct race for Starjammer. Some of the mechanics (healing/repair) are dependent on the construct's cost. So a playable construct has a defined cost. So now I'm wrestling with how *I* want the subject handled in my products before I proceed. New repair mechanic? Self-aware playable constructs are as rare as intelligent magic items and thus have special societal conventions for handling one upon creation? Do they only happen as the result of an Awake Construct spell? Do we introduce the concept of slavery and all that entails? Something else I've not thought of yet?
Such concepts aren't exactly new. Maybe not for "the good guys", but in fantasy settings, slavery has been a key point for about as long as the genre has been around. Usually as a tell of who the bad guys are. The idea is also common in science-fiction.
For pragmatic reasons, I think that for the sake of fleshing out interactions with the bad guys, there should eventually be some listing as to how such things are handled. In part, because of (yet more) intrigue campaigns where a player might want to bluff their way through "selling" one of their teammates as part of an infiltration. And such a deal does imply a nessacarily getting some Gold as a side effect... At which point the GM is left holding the ball of "how much do they actually get?"
On the opposite end, some players will gleefully start "anti-hero" campaigns... Or outright evil ones. Either one of which could involve buying slaves, either to set them free, or to act as conscripts in some war (justified or not).
Side note:
Needless to say, none of these scenarios are ideal... But let's be honest with ourselves, not everyone role-plays to find the best in themselves, or to have pleasant happy times. Much the same way that some people enjoy horror movies where... Okay, just Horror movies in general.
Sometimes people role-play because they need to examine what their own moral limits are when there's no consequences, and gain a better understanding of themselves. And some really like to go through dark, traumatic emotions, in in an attempt to either overcome or deaden that emotion; such as role-playing grief to feel more ready to accept loss.
I'll leave it at that. I'm not exactly well versed in the topic of Catharsis. Apotheosis, maybe... Catharsis? no.
Imbicatus |
Garrett Guillotte wrote:What sort of language or script is that text?Totally isn't Aurebesh. But it sort of looks like what might happen if Aurebesh and Espruar (the Forgotten Realms elvish script) were introduced to the wizard that made the first Owlbear.
I think some Klingon got thrown in as well.
David knott 242 |
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:But no, the equipment section does not let you buy or sell self-aware creatures, for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.This is a problem I ran into while designing a playable construct race for Starjammer. Some of the mechanics (healing/repair) are dependent on the construct's cost. So a playable construct has a defined cost. So now I'm wrestling with how *I* want the subject handled in my products before I proceed. New repair mechanic? Self-aware playable constructs are as rare as intelligent magic items and thus have special societal conventions for handling one upon creation? Do they only happen as the result of an Awake Construct spell? Do we introduce the concept of slavery and all that entails? Something else I've not thought of yet?
I can think of two ways that a price might be applicable to self-aware constructs, only one of which presents any serious moral problems:
1) The more objectionable way can be found in the likely backstory for the android race. I think they did start out as slaves.
2) The less objectionable way would be to make the creation of a self-aware construct morally and legally equivalent to conceiving a child via in vitro fertilization. The main difference for such a construct would be the lack of a definite age of adulthood, so some sort of test would have to be devised to measure the construct's progress towards mental maturity as well as to detect any attempts by the "parents" to impede that progress. Obviously, such a construct could be bought/created, inherited, or emancipated but never sold.
Alzrius |
But no, the equipment section does not let you buy or sell self-aware creatures, for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.
Very obvious: you're holding back the good stuff for a future supplement. But that's fine, I can wait. :p
Owen K. C. Stephens Developer, Starfinder Team |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Sure. androids are true AIs. That's a core race.
The mechanic has a class feature called "Artificial Intelligence"
We mention there are robots on Aballon that are self-aware.But no, the equipment section does not let you buy or sell self-aware creatures, for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.
I thought androids explicitly aren't AI in the first place?
Instead, they get normal souls granting them sapience just like any other living creature.
What about that makes them not AI?
An android has a constructed brain which is able to support a soul. That makes it self-aware. The fact it is an AI with a soul doesn't mean it's not an AI.
Luna Protege |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mashallah wrote:Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Sure. androids are true AIs. That's a core race.
The mechanic has a class feature called "Artificial Intelligence"
We mention there are robots on Aballon that are self-aware.But no, the equipment section does not let you buy or sell self-aware creatures, for what I think are fairly obvious reasons.
I thought androids explicitly aren't AI in the first place?
Instead, they get normal souls granting them sapience just like any other living creature.What about that makes them not AI?
An android has a constructed brain which is able to support a soul. That makes it self-aware. The fact it is an AI with a soul doesn't mean it's not an AI.
Well, once we've reached this point, we begin to require making distinctions between various aspects of a conscious person's "being" in order to make any headway on the question of if something is, or is not, intelligent due to artificial means, or through natural means.
Which means we have to break it down into component parts:
1) Does the soul automatically grant intelligence to any normally intellectually inert object it inhabits?
2) Are souls attracted to intelligent beings who do not yet possess a soul?
3) Is it possible to be artificially intelligent without a soul?
4) Do creatures with non-zero intelligence but not self aware possess a soul?
5) In what order does Intelligence, a Soul, and Knowledge, occur in a forming Android?
6) To what extent does artificial knowledge and memories apply in the creation of an AI?
7) Are Mind and Soul even separate entities in this setting to begin with?
8) Is the intelligence of a living brain in the setting a function of physical properties as it is in the real world? Or the result of magical properties?
9) Does the formation of the soul begin within the living/intelligent entity? Or is it already partially formed when the energy that makes it up leaves its source to enter a body?
10) Can souls form in a part of the universe unlikely to receive energy directly from the plane of positive energy, such as in "Deep Space"?
11) Is there any notable difference in properties between the soul of an android and a living being? And if so, is it any more significant than the difference between the souls of different living beings?
12) Does the "Artificial Intelligence" label also apply to synthetic Biological brains such as ones grown in vats?
13) Are "Artificial Souls" a possibility?
I'm fairly sure I'm not equipped to answer these questions... Save maybe the last question, as we've mentioned it a couple of times; the existence of the "Awaken Construct" Spell. Which mentions that it "changes" the energies involved into ones resembling a soul, rather than infuses one.
I figure we need more time for these questions in order to formulate a proper answer. Not to mention I probably missed a few connecting questions that would lead us to a final answer.
Shinigami02 |
One thing I'm curious about is how weapon hacking works. I vaguely remember at one point mention of an Analog weapon quality meaning that weapon couldn't be hacked, which suggests weapon hacking is a thing. But is it a thing that could be done in combat? This blog says hacking takes 1 round per tier, so if that still applies it probably wouldn't be.
Brew Bird |
One thing I'm curious about is how weapon hacking works. I vaguely remember at one point mention of an Analog weapon quality meaning that weapon couldn't be hacked, which suggests weapon hacking is a thing. But is it a thing that could be done in combat? This blog says hacking takes 1 round per tier, so if that still applies it probably wouldn't be.
Perhaps the Technomancer or Hacker-Operative have some tricks for hacking in combat?
Owen K. C. Stephens Developer, Starfinder Team |
One thing I'm curious about is how weapon hacking works. I vaguely remember at one point mention of an Analog weapon quality meaning that weapon couldn't be hacked, which suggests weapon hacking is a thing. But is it a thing that could be done in combat? This blog says hacking takes 1 round per tier, so if that still applies it probably wouldn't be.
That's less about hacking from a Computers skill point of view, and more about how certainly abilities work with things that have circuits and power sources, but not a firing pin than hits a percussion cap and nothing else more advanced than springs a levers.
McBugman |
blog wrote:Beyond its tier, a computer is defined by its size, user interface, access and authorization, basic function, modules (which define what the computer can do or control beyond its basic functions, and may include controlling other devices or computers), and countermeasures.There is a ton of depth to unpack here.
Agreed, at first glance I'm really liking this skill system for that reason. It's simplified for the game's sake, yet still complicated enough for the necessary diversity it should bring to the setting. My only question, is there a DC for identifying the tier, basic function, modules, countermeasures, and etc of any given computer?
My only thought wish is that when a PC finds a computer they'd like to hack, I'm sure they'd notice if it's an Apple or Samsung or HP or Tesla car or whatever. Being able to deduce tier as a free action seems reasonable to me.
Luna Protege |
Shinigami02 wrote:One thing I'm curious about is how weapon hacking works. I vaguely remember at one point mention of an Analog weapon quality meaning that weapon couldn't be hacked, which suggests weapon hacking is a thing. But is it a thing that could be done in combat? This blog says hacking takes 1 round per tier, so if that still applies it probably wouldn't be.That's less about hacking from a Computers skill point of view, and more about how certainly abilities work with things that have circuits and power sources, but not a firing pin than hits a percussion cap and nothing else more advanced than springs a levers.
Sounds like a nice bit of information that the Guns Thread would love to chew on for a bit.
I suspect that Kinetic projectile weapons that don't have that quality are mostly going to be things like Railguns... Save for maybe the occasional gun which has some kind of "electric firing pin" as the igniter, which sounds like a largely redundant feature. Or one that uses motorized chambering/reloading rather than spring-loaded.
Though, knowing arms manufacturing, the only practical reason for the later cases if implemented in our world would be that they're easier to shut down remotely. (For example, EMP or some kind of radio accessed shut down chip, or perhaps a biometric lock).
Jaxom Faux |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate that physical presence looks to be required for most hacking - keep the hacker with the group, dang it!
Jimbles the Mediocre wrote:Yeah, no kidding. Moreover, the genre conventions by and large wouldn't support realistic hacking anyway - we want R2 plugging into one of those little rotational sockets and gaining access to prisoner manifests and engineering schematics in like 30 seconds.blog wrote:So let's just put it out there: Like many RPGs set in a universe with advanced technology, Starfinder has rules for computers, and hacking computers. And, like nearly all RPGs that do so, these rules aren't grounded in reality.Thank you for heading that discussion off at the pass.
No kidding.
Firstly I agree with the "one computers skill" because honestly... every programming language/hacking method/encryption/networking/etc is just a deeper facet of knowing "how to use a computer"
Secondly i hope we can avoid the old shadowrun "rigger is the computer the rest of the party waits for him to finish his solo". I'm assuming this will be closer to rogue disabling the trap rolls.
Owen K. C. Stephens Developer, Starfinder Team |
I suspect that Kinetic projectile weapons that don't have that quality are mostly going to be things like Railguns... Save for maybe the occasional gun which has some kind of "electric firing pin" as the igniter, which sounds like a largely redundant feature. Or one that uses motorized chambering/reloading rather than spring-loaded.
That's the basic idea. Now this being a sci-fantasyi game, we have some sci-fi projectile types. Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired. They aren't analog. X-gen guns have external power packs powering ammo feeds. Magnetar rifles use electromagnets to fire their rounds.
But standard semi-auto pistols and machine guns are analog, since they just use mechanical parts and compressed chemical propellant of whatever type.
Jaxom Faux |
The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.
the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
Mashallah |
Mashallah wrote:The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.Jaxom Faux |
Luna Protege wrote:I suspect that Kinetic projectile weapons that don't have that quality are mostly going to be things like Railguns... Save for maybe the occasional gun which has some kind of "electric firing pin" as the igniter, which sounds like a largely redundant feature. Or one that uses motorized chambering/reloading rather than spring-loaded.That's the basic idea. Now this being a sci-fantasyi game, we have some sci-fi projectile types. Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired. They aren't analog. X-gen guns have external power packs powering ammo feeds. Magnetar rifles use electromagnets to fire their rounds.
But standard semi-auto pistols and machine guns are analog, since they just use mechanical parts and compressed chemical propellant of whatever type.
not to mention fuzzing the AI targeting assist/rupturing magnetic containment/glitter-bombing the air to refract lasers/de-ionizing the area/etc :D
none of those would affect a good ol iron sighted slug thrower.
Imbicatus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.
Mashallah |
Mashallah wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.
Firing a projectile is literally sending equal momentum into two directions.
One of those is the momentum of the bullet, the other is known as recoil. If you recombine them, they simply cancel out and the bullet stops moving.Stopping the bullet in the barrel is very counter-productive to having an effective weapon.
KingOfAnything |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mashallah wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.
Tape an immovable rod or two to the barrel, set up an activation circuit to quickly engage them upon firing the projectile. Behold, all that energy that would have been recoil is now directed forward behind the ammunition. (Thanks 2nd law!)
If you make the recoil mass inclusive of your frame of reference, there is effectively no recoil.
David knott 242 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The physics of Owen's gun make about as much sense as most sci-fi explanations of artificial gravity or anti-gravity. I think that is part of why this product line is science fantasy rather than science fiction.
JRutterbush |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imbicatus wrote:Mashallah wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.Firing a projectile is literally sending equal momentum into two directions.
One of those is the momentum of the bullet, the other is known as recoil. If you recombine them, they simply cancel out and the bullet stops moving.
Stopping the bullet in the barrel is very counter-productive to having an effective weapon.
No, see, because the reaction coil does a super-technical science thing using knowledge of physics that we don't have yet in our time period, which redirects the recoil in such a way as to propel the bullet even farther. You'd be surprised at the scientific advancements made in the far future of a dimension where magic exists and the laws of physics are mutable.
Or, to put it a different way: it's a science fantasy game, don't overthink it.
KingOfAnything |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A reaction cannon is a perfectly plausible evolution of elements of Pathfinder into a new future society.
Someone had to be the first person to tape an immovable rod to their rifle. I'd be more surprised if no one had thought of it by the time Starfinder takes place.
Jaxom Faux |
Jaxom Faux wrote:Mashallah wrote:The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.
Yes, i can't fail the basic roll. But i'm getting a reward for being a master hacker with not having to repeatedly roll. also different actions likely have different dc's and who knows what modifiers are in play between rolls.
so accessing the computer on my super roll saves me from having to "disable the turret system" at a dc 20 "turn the pc into a remotely detonated bomb" on a dc 25 and such.
Maybe the computer has counter-measures to any roll under a 25?
Mashallah |
Mashallah wrote:Jaxom Faux wrote:Mashallah wrote:The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.Yes, i can't fail the basic roll. But i'm getting a reward for being a master hacker with not having to repeatedly roll. also different actions likely have different dc's and who knows what modifiers are in play between rolls.
so accessing the computer on my super roll saves me from having to "disable the turret system" at a dc 20 "turn the pc into a remotely detonated bomb" on a dc 25 and such.
Maybe the computer has counter-measures to any roll under a 25?
I can't imagine the kind of DM who would make you roll when you pass on a 1, unless you explicitly want to for some reason.
Jaxom Faux |
Imbicatus wrote:Mashallah wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.Firing a projectile is literally sending equal momentum into two directions.
One of those is the momentum of the bullet, the other is known as recoil. If you recombine them, they simply cancel out and the bullet stops moving.
Stopping the bullet in the barrel is very counter-productive to having an effective weapon.
It's fantasy.
The recoil is being recoiled and therefore adding 2x momentum to the object. :D
normal force
======<>=======
reaction cannon
======<>======= then magically the recoil is returned becoming ======<<=====<
KingOfAnything |
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.Yes, i can't fail the basic roll. But i'm getting a reward for being a master hacker with not having to repeatedly roll. also different actions likely have different dc's and who knows what modifiers are in play between rolls.
so accessing the computer on my super roll saves me from having to "disable the turret system" at a dc 20 "turn the pc into a remotely detonated bomb" on a dc 25 and such.
Maybe the computer has counter-measures to any roll under a 25?
So the DC is 25. And if you fail by 5 or less, you still disable the turrets.
Jaxom Faux |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jaxom Faux wrote:I can't imagine the kind of DM who would make you roll when you pass on a 1, unless you explicitly want to for some reason.Mashallah wrote:Jaxom Faux wrote:Mashallah wrote:The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.Yes, i can't fail the basic roll. But i'm getting a reward for being a master hacker with not having to repeatedly roll. also different actions likely have different dc's and who knows what modifiers are in play between rolls.
so accessing the computer on my super roll saves me from having to "disable the turret system" at a dc 20 "turn the pc into a remotely detonated bomb" on a dc 25 and such.
Maybe the computer has counter-measures to any roll under a 25?
I agree, when i'm dm i tell my players they don't need to roll if they can't fail. I'm just saying we have no idea yet what other actions may be involved, if it does turn out a simple roll will do it i completely agree with you that rule would be pointless.
David knott 242 |
Jaxom Faux wrote:I can't imagine the kind of DM who would make you roll when you pass on a 1, unless you explicitly want to for some reason.Mashallah wrote:Jaxom Faux wrote:Mashallah wrote:The "beat DC by 20 to stop making checks" feels very superfluous and pointless to be honest.
To be even theoretically able to beat DC by 20, you need to be able to pass the DC at a roll of 1.
And, at that point, you autosucceed every check anyway, so you wouldn't likely have to roll in the first place.the dc is 10, i have bonuses worth +15, i roll a 15 = i don't have to roll anymore to do so something.
i roll a 14 = i have to make a probably simple roll with a slight chance of oops for everything.
doesn't seem stupid to me nor did i roll a 1 to make it work.
You don't get the point.
If a DC is 10 and you have +15 modifier, you can't fail even on a roll of 1, making rolling pointless in the first place.Yes, i can't fail the basic roll. But i'm getting a reward for being a master hacker with not having to repeatedly roll. also different actions likely have different dc's and who knows what modifiers are in play between rolls.
so accessing the computer on my super roll saves me from having to "disable the turret system" at a dc 20 "turn the pc into a remotely detonated bomb" on a dc 25 and such.
Maybe the computer has counter-measures to any roll under a 25?
The only reason I can think of for rolling would be if degree of success mattered. If all rolls in the 1-20 range are known to generate exactly the same result, then a simple declaration of that result should be sufficient.
JRutterbush |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a sci-fi game.
No, it's not. This is science fantasy, which is literally just fantasy in space.
Also, once again, who's to say that we know everything there is to know about physics? There could easily be something we don't know that's being used to power the reaction cannon, something that won't be discovered for decades, or even centuries, to come.
Mashallah |
Aratrok wrote:It's a sci-fi game.No, it's not. This is science fantasy, which is literally just fantasy in space.
Also, once again, who's to say that we know everything there is to know about physics? There could easily be something we don't know that's being used to power the reaction cannon, something that won't be discovered for decades, or even centuries, to come.
What you're saying is "this is science fantasy so 1-1=0 doesn't have to hold true".
Math is a pretty rigid thing that doesn't care about fancy science.JRutterbush |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JRutterbush wrote:Aratrok wrote:It's a sci-fi game.No, it's not. This is science fantasy, which is literally just fantasy in space.
Also, once again, who's to say that we know everything there is to know about physics? There could easily be something we don't know that's being used to power the reaction cannon, something that won't be discovered for decades, or even centuries, to come.
What you're saying is "this is science fantasy so 1-1=0 doesn't have to hold true".
Math is a pretty rigid thing that doesn't care about fancy science.
Math and physics are not equivalent. Math is self-evident, physics is something we're still learning new things about. It's about imagination, and saying "That's not how it is now, so it's wrong to imagine a world where it's different." is not conducive to the kind of story that Starfinder is trying to tell. And if you don't like that, that's fine, maybe this game isn't for you. There are plenty of other hard sci-fi style games out there.
Ventnor |
Imbicatus wrote:Mashallah wrote:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In addition, Magic exists. Multiple dimension exist. This isn't Science Fiction, it's Science Fantasy. Don't try to apply real-world physics to it.Owen K. C. Stephens wrote:Reaction cannons use advanced tech to redirect recoil back into the projectile being fired.That is not how kinetics work. That is not how any physics works.
That phrase is utter nonsense granted even minimal knowledge of physics.Firing a projectile is literally sending equal momentum into two directions.
One of those is the momentum of the bullet, the other is known as recoil. If you recombine them, they simply cancel out and the bullet stops moving.
Stopping the bullet in the barrel is very counter-productive to having an effective weapon.
Would it be easier to accept if, say, reaction cannons were made of unobtanium harvested from special mines in the Drift and had to have redirection runes carved inside the barrel?
David knott 242 |
Magic would be one way, or (if science is needed) you could always go with having the gun expel a small amount of mass backwards at close to light speed but enough out of phase to avoid harming anything behind you. I am sure somebody could pick apart the physics in that explanation (in fact, I think I could), but its violations of known physics are a bit better hidden.
Shisumo |
Or the firing chamber is lined with a narrow ring of LMHGE sources (low-mass, high-graviton-emission) that are juiced with a phased energy pulse at the same time as the cannon fires, producing a tight fold in space just a few centimeters across that lasts for just about 450 nanoseconds - but for that period, all directional vectors in that space point toward the barrel opening.
Luna Protege |
Or it could have a dimensional rift in the firing chamber that shunts the recoil into another plane and then gates it back into the projectile.
For some reason this makes me think of gravitational lensing. Like, directing the force normally imparted as Recoil into a sort of looped spatial field, or perhaps a "virtual" looped spatial field which exhibits properties of altered space but without having to use actual space to do so.
Of course... That latter case of "virtual" spatial fields sounds a lot like the idea of cyberspace.
Now if only we actually had a clue on if Cyberspace was an actual thing in Starfinder. I grew up on Digimon, and I just love the idea of entire universes being made up of the same digital information as what makes up our networks; and weirdly how many implications that has for re-programing the existing universe.
Granted, the "reprogram reality" idea was done better by Devil Survivor; in that its "technomagic" stuff like that was distributed for easy use among what effectively amounted to script kiddies. Their Cell Phones effectively did all the information work, they just screamed really loud and directed the monsters it summoned.
While I'm sure Technomancers already have shades of this, for them, they seem more in line with whoever made that program; I'd really like to see devices made by such Technomancers that can make their way into something resembling the PF Rogue Archetype of Counterfeit Mage. Except instead of wands, they use a small handheld device.
I'm not sure where I was going with this... Maybe its just a collection of tangential thoughts.
Owen K. C. Stephens Developer, Starfinder Team |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say it was pure technology, I said it was considered a "technological item."
Even in Space Opera and "soft" science-fi, the dividing line between magic and physics-defying tech is pretty thin.
We actually address the question of there being possibly a drop of magic in technological items, and a bit of technology in magic items, and where those overlaps are significant enough to be considered full hybrid items.
Reaction cannons, capable of redirecting the direction of kinetic energy of recoil to double down on the force being shot out of one end, is far from the last science-y thing to ever be suggested in settings with sci-fi-fi trappings, even if we don't give any specifics on how it's done (just as we don't explain how cryo weapons, or solarian weapon crystals, or wrack blades work).
Just as Pathfinder doesn't explain how dragons can fly, despite being clearly too heavy given their wingspan and their flight not being listed as magical.
Gilfalas |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is.
All those even remotely sensible explanations rely on magic, while Owen said it's pure technology.
So your fine with laser swords, organic beings making energy weapons out of pure will, living machines with souls but the stopping point of your suspension of disbelief are guns in a super tech/magic settings that can redirect recoil energy?
We have guns today in real life that use purely mechanical means to redirect recoil energy to produce more accurate fire and increase stability.
Why is it so impossible to conceive that a far future technology in a setting where artificial gravity is the norm for ships, energy storage and generation is so advanced and efficient that actual directed energy weapons are commonplace and shielding made up of pure energy is real and one can travel between planets quickly and efficiently in ships but the redirection of force inside a gun barrel is too much to ask?
Even 30 years ago, our current smart phones would have been looked at as 'silly magic tech' but here we have them today.
We have car brakes today that can absorb breaking energy and convert it to electricity.
The tech of absorbing force and converting it or redirecting it already exists today. In the future maybe they have just gotten really efficient at it?
Mashallah |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mashallah wrote:The thing is.
All those even remotely sensible explanations rely on magic, while Owen said it's pure technology.So your fine with laser swords, organic beings making energy weapons out of pure will, living machines with souls but the stopping point of your suspension of disbelief are guns in a super tech/magic settings that can redirect recoil energy?
We have guns today in real life that use purely mechanical means to redirect recoil energy to produce more accurate fire and increase stability.
Why is it so impossible to conceive that a far future technology in a setting where artificial gravity is the norm for ships, energy storage and generation is so advanced and efficient that actual directed energy weapons are commonplace and shielding made up of pure energy is real and one can travel between planets quickly and efficiently in ships but the redirection of force inside a gun barrel is too much to ask?
Even 30 years ago, our current smart phones would have been looked at as 'silly magic tech' but here we have them today.
They don't alter the net vector, as that is simply mathematically impossible. The reaction cannon, as described, would alter the net vector.
I'm fine with laser swords and whatever, as they're cool. I'm not fine with plain math being blatantly contradicted.Gilfalas |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They don't alter the net vector, as that is simply mathematically impossible. The reaction cannon, as described, would alter the net vector.
I'm fine with laser swords and whatever, as they're cool. I'm not fine with plain math being blatantly contradicted.
Which is why it is science fiction/fantasy.
Are you ok with FTL travel? Are you ok with near light speed travel? Are you ok with magic? Are you ok with Nanotech? Are you ok with telepathic races?
But finding a way to store and redistribute reaction force in a gun is a game breaker?
So your ok with light sabres and blasters but hyper efficient bullet guns are no go.
Imbicatus |
Gilfalas wrote:Mashallah wrote:The thing is.
All those even remotely sensible explanations rely on magic, while Owen said it's pure technology.So your fine with laser swords, organic beings making energy weapons out of pure will, living machines with souls but the stopping point of your suspension of disbelief are guns in a super tech/magic settings that can redirect recoil energy?
We have guns today in real life that use purely mechanical means to redirect recoil energy to produce more accurate fire and increase stability.
Why is it so impossible to conceive that a far future technology in a setting where artificial gravity is the norm for ships, energy storage and generation is so advanced and efficient that actual directed energy weapons are commonplace and shielding made up of pure energy is real and one can travel between planets quickly and efficiently in ships but the redirection of force inside a gun barrel is too much to ask?
Even 30 years ago, our current smart phones would have been looked at as 'silly magic tech' but here we have them today.
They don't alter the net vector, as that is simply mathematically impossible. The reaction cannon, as described, would alter the net vector.
I'm fine with laser swords and whatever, as they're cool. I'm not fine with plain math being blatantly contradicted.
Mashallah |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mashallah wrote:They don't alter the net vector, as that is simply mathematically impossible. The reaction cannon, as described, would alter the net vector.
I'm fine with laser swords and whatever, as they're cool. I'm not fine with plain math being blatantly contradicted.
Which is why it is science fiction/fantasy.
Are you ok with FTL travel? Are you ok with near light speed travel? Are you ok with magic? Are you ok with Nanotech? Are you ok with telepathic races?
But finding a way to store and redistribute reaction force in a gun is a game breaker?
So your ok with light sabres and blasters but hyper efficient bullet guns are no go.
I'm okay with all of those.
They make sense in-setting and I'm willing to suspend disbelief for them.I'm not willing to suspend disbelief for "math doesn't work in this setting", though.
KingOfAnything |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't alter the net vector, as that is simply mathematically impossible. The reaction cannon, as described, would alter the net vector.
I'm not willing to suspend disbelief for "math doesn't work in this setting", though.
It's a bit of a stretch to assume that "math doesn't work" from a three word description of a weapon.